In two separate judgments, the High Court has quashed two seperate FIRs registered by Porvorim police and Calangute police involving allegations of sexual offences following amicable settlements and affidavits tendered by the complainants. In both cases, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court precedent emphasizing that continuing prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose when parties have reconciled and sought personal closure, while ordering the both the petitioners and the respondents to deposit costs of 1 lakh rupees each for activating the judicial and police machinery.

In the first matter, the High Court quashed an FIR registered at Porvorim Police Station, along with the charge sheet and trial proceedings pending before the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO) at Panaji. The case originated from a March 2023 complaint filed by the victim’s mother alleging rape, when the victim was 17½ years old and the petitioner was 21. The victim—now a third-year MBBS student at a medical college in Pune—and her mother filed affidavits stating that the relationship was consensual, had developed from a friendship formed on Instagram, and that the original complaint arose from familial differences and misunderstandings. The victim submitted that continuing the trial would cause severe emotional turmoil and jeopardize her medical studies and future career. A court-appointed counsellor confirmed that she was mature, capable of making an informed decision, and acting of her own free will. Noting that the prosecution's evidence was inadequate and that forcing the student to undergo trial would merely prolong distress, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, subject to the condition that the petitioner and the respondents jointly pay ₹3,00,000 as costs to the Goa High Court Bar Association within one week, to be utilized for advocate training programs.

In the second matter, the High Court quashed an FIR registered at Calangute Police Station for alleged rape, voluntarily causing hurt, and criminal intimidation. The case had progressed to the charge-sheet stage before the trial court. The complainant, who appeared before the High Court, confirmed through an affidavit that the dispute stemmed from a misunderstanding and had been completely resolved. She stated that she is married and living in New Delhi, and traveling to Goa to pursue the trial would cause acute distress and disrupt her matrimonial life. The prosecution did not oppose the quashing in light of the settlement, but urged the High Court to impose costs for setting the criminal law in motion. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, observing that continuing the trial when the complainant categorically refused to support the prosecution would be an exercise in futility. However, the High Court directed both the petitioner and the complainant to each deposit ₹1,00,000 within one week into the account of Matruchayya Trust in Ponda, with compliance to be reported by November 3, 2026.